2

I posted this question yesterday evening:

Good software to take a blog and format it for printing

It is a question looking for a software tool that will take a blog and format it for printing.

This morning I checked on it and found it had been closed as an exact duplicate for this question:

What is a good alternative to Publisher for Desktop Publishing?

Which is a question looking for a desktop publishing tool.

While it is true that both questions refer to Publisher in some way, I don't see that my question is answered (or asked for that matter) in the "first post".

Any chance I can get some re-open votes from Meta users? (Or a good explanation as to how my question is answered by the "first question".)

  • 6
    oh random, the Diago path has started... – Juan Manuel Mar 29 '10 at 14:39
  • 2
    Hang on... looking for another possible dupe. – random Mar 29 '10 at 14:47
6

Yes, you're correct, that was a bad call.

Instead it should have been closed as a dupe of Looking for software to facilitate printing of online content.

But then that one does mention wanting web-based software.

Flip switch

Dupe has been swapped and the annotation left as:

Dupe close because while the newer one is of extremely similar premise, it does not cover just web-based software, which is outside the scope of SU.

  • Can you re-open it and close it again? – Juan Manuel Mar 29 '10 at 14:52
  • 5
    Yes, mods can have close and re-open wars with themselves. @dow – random Mar 29 '10 at 14:54
  • 3
    It must be so fun being a mod, I am having a blast with the 10k tools here on meta... – Juan Manuel Mar 29 '10 at 14:55
  • Alas, that post does not have an answer that does what I am looking for. :( Despite that, I agree that my question is much closer to a dupe of that one. (Maybe there is nothing out there that does what I am looking for.) Maybe I will write one.... – Vaccano Mar 29 '10 at 14:55
  • 2
    Was actually thinking of swapping that other "Looking for software" as a dupe of yours since he wants web-based and that's not SU scope. If anyone wants to chime in, free for all. @vac – random Mar 29 '10 at 15:06
  • @random: i'd be tempted to close 21541 as offtopic and reopen 125222, tho, w.r.t. 21541, it's that gray-area of "web-based-but-locally-administered" as opposed to the clearly-offtopic "web-based-and-provided-by-someone-else". (although he's looking at Quark Server, which probably means it's really more of an SF question than SU.) back to 125222 (the question in question), i'd say just reopen, maybe point back to 21541 and indicate why it's not good enough. – quack quixote Mar 29 '10 at 15:18
  • Already beat you to that daisy field. @qua – random Mar 29 '10 at 15:26
  • 2
    @ran yeah, i see that. don't you ever sleep?? – quack quixote Mar 29 '10 at 15:37
  • 2
    Was forgetting something... @qua – random Mar 29 '10 at 15:40
5

Actually, I would say that the second half of your question ("I could use Publisher") is matching to the duplicate, and this is probably why it got closed.

However, the rest seems quite specific, and more than just asking for a Publisher alternative.

In my opinion, this could be reopened.


In general, remember that moderators are humans too (aside from random, who is obviously a unicorn on a sugar rush), and as such, can easily make mistakes. Don't hesitate in such case to edit your question with more details, and/or simply flag your own question for moderator attention, for a second opinion.

I guess there is no need for a meta post for each closed question, such thing can be settled directly, without a "call for reopen votes".

  • 2
    Agreed, the killer line was Now I could do all of this with MS Publisher or Word. Which to me means, I know of some desktop publishing software, but I'm looking for an alternative. – heavyd Mar 29 '10 at 14:46
  • If there was a Meta question for every randomly closed question, they would need to change it to Meta Super User. – random Mar 29 '10 at 15:08
  • 3
    +1 for "unicorn on a sugar-rush"... – quack quixote Mar 29 '10 at 15:12
  • 3
    @random - makes me think that this meta.superuser.com still doesn't redirect here. – Gnoupi Mar 29 '10 at 15:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .